Are National Socialists making a comeback?

[The Grand World Order]

yeah. You're probably right. But no need to just genereally target Muslims as what's causing the problem. If you just targeted Wahhabis (if you know what those are) I would have little to no problems. But you guys don't...You just...don't.

And bringing race separatism and purging of other cultures in is an even worse Idea.

I personally don't target anyone that doesn't meet DoD criteria for strike packages.

I spent my first year and a half in the Marines studying Middle Eastern cultures and the Arabic language; I'm well-aware of what a Wahhabi is, and I can tell you the differences between Wahhabis and Qutbists.

However, you're right, and the typical lower-middle class European probably doesn't know- which is why it's important to not displace them when importing these people, or insist that their native culture is somehow lesser to that of the immigrants.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Other than a yearning for a glorious past -which all French parties have frankly- and a nationalistic love of France, the FN shares no similarity with fascism. It does not believe in a corporatist economy, it does not believe in irredentism or territorial expansion, it does not advocate the forgoing of democracy for a strong-leader etc.

If I'm not mistaken, the FN's economic policies are heavily influenced by the concept of national economic autarky? I may be wrong on that one. Not that that would make them fascist per se, but it would be one school of thought that was also very prominent in 30ies Fascist/National Socialist movements.

Not necessarily autarky per se, the FN is in favor of some free trade albeit interspersed with heavy economic protectionism to protect French domestic industry from "teh ebul global companies" (Shades of Poujadism I believe?) along with active state support for French industry.

The term I believe you're looking for is economic nationalism interwoven with anti-globalisation as preached the FN. It's not necessarily the same as corporatism (which is central to Fascist/National Socialist ideology) which advocates a more systematic organisation and management of the national economy than what the FN supports.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

The FN is not Nazi, nor fascist. Golden Dawn is, I recognized that in an edit to my post. The FPO today is not Nazi, nor fascist.

The FPÖ leader HC Strache has a Right-wing extremist past though, and FPÖ party members are notorious for trying to whitewash Nazism with witty "I-pretend-to-be-sarcastic-but-I-actually-mean-it" remarks.

There is a very fascinating difference in how the German and the Austrian Ultraright try to deal with the topic of the Third Reich in the way they present themselves to mainstream society. While German Neo-Nazis are known for the "aggressive thug with tattooed arms and shaven head" behavior, their Austrian equivalents tend to go for a more "Gentleman Nazi who would make a great son-in-law" approach.

Probably because the German political mainstream has all but effectively discarded any support for Nazism (The Volksverhetzung and systematic laws designed to clamp down on Nazi ideology) to the point where Nazism has effectively been relegated to the fringe minority.

It's somewhat different in Austria because of several factors such as the lack of comprehensive coming to terms with the past as the Germans did (There is a tendency for some Austrians to paint themselves as equally unwilling victims of Hitler's Anschluss) and perceived dissatisfaction with the Austrian political mainstream. Partly why Jorg Haider's FPO did well in the 1990s was because of voter dissatisfaction with the Proporz (a sort of informal power-sharing arrangement amongst the main Austrian political parties).

[Jochistan]

yeah. You're probably right. But no need to just genereally target Muslims as what's causing the problem. If you just targeted Wahhabis (if you know what those are) I would have little to no problems. But you guys don't...You just...don't.

And bringing race separatism and purging of other cultures in is an even worse Idea.

I personally don't target anyone that doesn't meet DoD criteria for strike packages.

I spent my first year and a half in the Marines studying Middle Eastern cultures and the Arabic language; I'm well-aware of what a Wahhabi is, and I can tell you the differences between Wahhabis and Qutbists.

However, you're right, and the typical lower-middle class European probably doesn't know- which is why it's important to not displace them when importing these people, or insist that their native culture is somehow lesser to that of the immigrants.

Oh, alright fair enough. And yeah. the housing thing is blatantly organizing them into ghettoes and displacing other innocent people.

But theres really no way to do it any other way when Europe decides to go on such a misguided endeavor of bringing this many refugees in while being too trusting to deal with the Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood Supporters, Fundamentalist Twelvers in the communities.

More often than not. Cultural Muslims and random, inoffensive sects like Barelvis, A smattering of Sufi Tariqa and the more lenient Twelvers are the targets for violence with National Socialist groups.

[The Grand World Order]

Oh, alright fair enough. And yeah. the housing thing is blatantly organizing them into ghettoes and displacing other innocent people.

But theres really no way to do it any other way when Europe decides to go on such a misguided endeavor of bringing this many refugees in while being too trusting to deal with the Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood Supporters, Fundamentalist Twelvers in the communities.

More often than not. Cultural Muslims and random, inoffensive sects like Barelvis, A smattering of Sufi Tariqa and the more lenient Twelvers are the targets for violence with National Socialist groups.

I think the complete lack of oversight has been creating a situation in which people feel they have to take things into their own hands. As there's typically no competent or well-resourced leadership in these endeavors, many of these individual struggles will be misguided. I feel that the solution would be to simply cap the amount of refugees coming over the border and do a much better job of assimilation, rather than trying to assimilate the locals into Middle Eastern culture. The mindset European governments appear to have is that Europeans should be ashamed of their national cultures and instead embrace Islamic culture- whether this is true or not is irrelevant, because perception is reality when dealing with the masses.

I do, however, think that it's pathetic that many of these refugees are military aged males willing to get violent with locals, but utterly unwilling to stand up to IS. That's just a personal feeling and not a policy statement, of course.

[Kvatchdom]

Oh, alright fair enough. And yeah. the housing thing is blatantly organizing them into ghettoes and displacing other innocent people.

But theres really no way to do it any other way when Europe decides to go on such a misguided endeavor of bringing this many refugees in while being too trusting to deal with the Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood Supporters, Fundamentalist Twelvers in the communities.

More often than not. Cultural Muslims and random, inoffensive sects like Barelvis, A smattering of Sufi Tariqa and the more lenient Twelvers are the targets for violence with National Socialist groups.

I think the complete lack of oversight has been creating a situation in which people feel they have to take things into their own hands. As there's typically no competent or well-resourced leadership in these endeavors, many of these individual struggles will be misguided. I feel that the solution would be to simply cap the amount of refugees coming over the border and do a much better job of assimilation, rather than trying to assimilate the locals into Middle Eastern culture. The mindset European governments appear to have is that Europeans should be ashamed of their national cultures and instead embrace Islamic culture- whether this is true or not is irrelevant, because perception is reality when dealing with the masses.

I do, however, think that it's pathetic that many of these refugees are military aged males willing to get violent with locals, but utterly unwilling to stand up to IS. That's just a personal feeling and not a policy statement, of course.

Most of these military-aged men arrive first to ensure a place for their families to stay, to keep them from the possibly useless and very dangerous travel until he has secured a place.

[Olerand]

So the answer, which is not limited to your solutions, should be to disengage and watch the radical Right climb the steps to power. But at least we know we did everything that eased our conscious, by actually doing nothing and paving the way for nationalism.

This is the ultimate fate of the Left?

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

Ah, violence and instability. The only way the Left can ensure the radical Right reaches power even faster.

[Olerand]

If I'm not mistaken, the FN's economic policies are heavily influenced by the concept of national economic autarky? I may be wrong on that one. Not that that would make them fascist per se, but it would be one school of thought that was also very prominent in 30ies Fascist/National Socialist movements.

Not necessarily autarky per se, the FN is in favor of some free trade albeit interspersed with heavy economic protectionism to protect French domestic industry from "teh ebul global companies" (Shades of Poujadism I believe?) along with active state support for French industry.

The term I believe you're looking for is economic nationalism interwoven with anti-globalisation as preached the FN. It's not necessarily the same as corporatism (which is central to Fascist/National Socialist ideology) which advocates a more systematic organisation and management of the national economy than what the FN supports.

They like to hark back to dirigisme. Technically no political party in France is truly free-market, as one would find in the Anglo-Saxon world, but the FN considers itself to be the inheritor of dirigisme. Although the influence of poujadism is present, even if they won't admit it.

Exactly.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

Ah, violence and instability. The only way the Left can ensure the radical Right reaches power even faster.

Remember kiddos, when Fascism and the Radical Right advocate violence and revolution, it's always a bad thing. When the Left does it, it's always for "teh greater good". *nods*

[Themiclesia]

Ah, violence and instability. The only way the Left can ensure the radical Right reaches power even faster.

Remember kiddos, when Fascism and the Radical Right advocate violence and revolution, it's always a bad thing. When the Left does it, it's always for "teh greater good". *nods*

The issue is that Fascists tend to regard violence positively in its own right, whereas with Communists it is just a means to an end.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Remember kiddos, when Fascism and the Radical Right advocate violence and revolution, it's always a bad thing. When the Left does it, it's always for "teh greater good". *nods*

The issue is that Fascists tend to regard violence positively in its own right, whereas with Communists it is just a means to an end.

Yet that doesn make their actions any more excusable. Why should we accept the creation of a (mythical) classless and stateless society if that society was founded on violent revolution, the expropriation and destruction of an entire socioeconomic class and through class conflict? Fascism arguably uses violence also as a means to an end (chiefly the creation of a " regenerated" strong and unified state purged of all enemies, both real and imagined) yet we never see the same stigma accompanying Communism as we see so often directed against Fascism and the Right.

[Salus Maior]

Ah, violence and instability. The only way the Left can ensure the radical Right reaches power even faster.

Remember kiddos, when Fascism and the Radical Right advocate violence and revolution, it's always a bad thing. When the Left does it, it's always for "teh greater good". *nods*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5uEYqpZPw

[Themiclesia]

The issue is that Fascists tend to regard violence positively in its own right, whereas with Communists it is just a means to an end.

Yet that doesn make their actions any more excusable. Why should we accept the creation of a (mythical) classless and stateless society if that society was founded on violent revolution, the expropriation and destruction of an entire socioeconomic class and through class conflict? Fascism arguably uses violence also as a means to an end (chiefly the creation of a " regenerated" strong and unified state purged of all enemies, both real and imagined) yet we never see the same stigma accompanying Communism as we see so often directed against Fascism and the Right.

Is there ever a Fascist "Internationale", where everything is peaceful and perfect? No. In the ideal fascist society, the stronger state will always continue to oppress the weaker state, and that's what makes it totally unacceptable, in that in the ideal state violence continues. In communism at least you have the illusion of a peaceful society, where states and classes (as sources of conflict) are abolished.

[Lyras]

Yet that doesn make their actions any more excusable. Why should we accept the creation of a (mythical) classless and stateless society if that society was founded on violent revolution, the expropriation and destruction of an entire socioeconomic class and through class conflict? Fascism arguably uses violence also as a means to an end (chiefly the creation of a " regenerated" strong and unified state purged of all enemies, both real and imagined) yet we never see the same stigma accompanying Communism as we see so often directed against Fascism and the Right.

Is there ever a Fascist "Internationale", where everything is peaceful and perfect? No. In the ideal fascist society, the stronger state will always continue to oppress the weaker state, and that's what makes it totally unacceptable, in that in the ideal state violence continues. In communism at least you have the illusion of a peaceful society, where states and classes (as sources of conflict) are abolished.

Within idealised fascist inter-state interactions, racially homogenous groups constantly jockey for advantage, without ever pushing war to its end-state of obliteration of an enemy. More like low-level inter-state sparring, in the pre-Napoleonic War sense, as a way of maintaining and encouraging strength within and among nations.

Is that a practical thought line? No. But it's certainly more realistic and likely than the communist utopia, which is nothing but pure fantasy.

[Themiclesia]

Is there ever a Fascist "Internationale", where everything is peaceful and perfect? No. In the ideal fascist society, the stronger state will always continue to oppress the weaker state, and that's what makes it totally unacceptable, in that in the ideal state violence continues. In communism at least you have the illusion of a peaceful society, where states and classes (as sources of conflict) are abolished.

Within idealised fascist inter-state interactions, racially homogenous groups constantly jockey for advantage, without ever pushing war to its end-state of obliteration of an enemy. More like low-level inter-state sparring, in the pre-Napoleonic War sense, as a way of maintaining and encouraging strength within and among nations.

Is that a practical thought line? No. But it's certainly more realistic and likely than the communist utopia, which is nothing but pure fantasy.

But as far as fantasies go, since neither vision are apt to be realized, the Internationale is still far more attractive than constant, small-scale war. There goes public acceptance for Fascism.

I'm not attempting to make either one out to be superior to the other, but only to rationalize the level of acceptance of the Communist ideal compared to the Fascist one.

[Lyras]

Within idealised fascist inter-state interactions, racially homogenous groups constantly jockey for advantage, without ever pushing war to its end-state of obliteration of an enemy. More like low-level inter-state sparring, in the pre-Napoleonic War sense, as a way of maintaining and encouraging strength within and among nations.

Is that a practical thought line? No. But it's certainly more realistic and likely than the communist utopia, which is nothing but pure fantasy.

But as far as fantasies go, since neither vision are apt to be realized, the Internationale is still far more attractive than constant, small-scale war. There goes public acceptance for Fascism.

I'm not attempting to make either one out to be superior to the other, but only to rationalize the level of acceptance of the Communist ideal compared to the Fascist one.

The ideal of communism certainly has that cliche utopian bent. Though that, in itself, goes so far against human nature that it's remarkably difficult to swallow. The objective of a fascist worldview might not be so pleasant, but it promotes strength (central to many tenets of fascist thought) and resilience, while avoiding the spectre of domination of everything by a single entity that has no regard for its own people. A point that has appeal in itself, in a backhanded manner.

[Themiclesia]

But as far as fantasies go, since neither vision are apt to be realized, the Internationale is still far more attractive than constant, small-scale war. There goes public acceptance for Fascism.

I'm not attempting to make either one out to be superior to the other, but only to rationalize the level of acceptance of the Communist ideal compared to the Fascist one.

The ideal of communism certainly has that cliche utopian bent. Though that, in itself, goes so far against human nature that it's remarkably difficult to swallow. The objective of a fascist worldview might not be so pleasant, but it promotes strength (central to many tenets of fascist thought) and resilience, while avoiding the spectre of domination of everything by a single entity that has no regard for its own people. A point that has appeal in itself, in a backhanded manner.

It indeed has.

But given the manner in which both camps portrayed the proximity of the realization of their ideals, the Communist one must prevail. Moreover, most people don't regard strength as an attribute that they possess. The typical partisan who only knows how to shout slogans and march in parades does not understand the sheer scale of the difficulties inherent in human nature that must be overcome for the Internationale to be achieved.

[The Lone Alliance]

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

The problem is that you automatically assume you'd win.

[Kubra]

So the answer, which is not limited to your solutions, should be to disengage and watch the radical Right climb the steps to power. But at least we know we did everything that eased our conscious, by actually doing nothing and paving the way for nationalism.

This is the ultimate fate of the Left?

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

Fascists are pretty threatening at street-level (they'll beat this shit out of you for being brown) but politically they're harmless in themselves. Where fascism took power it was not because it was particularly good at street brawling, but because the respectable powers-that-were of these respective nations threw in their lot with them, gave them legal sanction and everything. Fascists are not power, they are merely a face it can assume when necessary.

[Kvatchdom]

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

Fascists are pretty threatening at street-level (they'll beat this shit out of you for being brown) but politically they're harmless in themselves. Where fascism took power it was not because it was particularly good at street brawling, but because the respectable powers-that-were of these respective nations threw in their lot with them, gave them legal sanction and everything. Fascists are not power, they are merely a face it can assume when necessary.

Fascism requires order. Neonazis are far from fascism, or even nazism itself.

[Kvatchdom]

Yet that doesn make their actions any more excusable. Why should we accept the creation of a (mythical) classless and stateless society if that society was founded on violent revolution, the expropriation and destruction of an entire socioeconomic class and through class conflict? Fascism arguably uses violence also as a means to an end (chiefly the creation of a " regenerated" strong and unified state purged of all enemies, both real and imagined) yet we never see the same stigma accompanying Communism as we see so often directed against Fascism and the Right.

Is there ever a Fascist "Internationale", where everything is peaceful and perfect? No. In the ideal fascist society, the stronger state will always continue to oppress the weaker state, and that's what makes it totally unacceptable, in that in the ideal state violence continues. In communism at least you have the illusion of a peaceful society, where states and classes (as sources of conflict) are abolished.

Romantical nationalism often leads to seeking old glory.

[Imperializt Russia]

A rise of 50% from 2 is still only 3.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If you think I am any sort of pacifist, you are very, very, very, very wrong. Like. Unbelievably so.

"Disengage?" Hah. Yeah, no. Fascists and their ilk deserve to be not only engaged, but sought out, so to speak.

Ah, violence and instability. The only way the Left can ensure the radical Right reaches power even faster.

Yes, because Fascism will always prevail! No matter the method of defense! Triumph of the will, am I right?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The issue is that Fascists tend to regard violence positively in its own right, whereas with Communists it is just a means to an end.

Yet that doesn make their actions any more excusable. Why should we accept the creation of a (mythical) classless and stateless society if that society was founded on violent revolution, the expropriation and destruction of an entire socioeconomic class and through class conflict? Fascism arguably uses violence also as a means to an end (chiefly the creation of a " regenerated" strong and unified state purged of all enemies, both real and imagined) yet we never see the same stigma accompanying Communism as we see so often directed against Fascism and the Right.

I guess you aren't American, because even being moderately socially liberal can earn you social stigma over here.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Is there ever a Fascist "Internationale", where everything is peaceful and perfect? No. In the ideal fascist society, the stronger state will always continue to oppress the weaker state, and that's what makes it totally unacceptable, in that in the ideal state violence continues. In communism at least you have the illusion of a peaceful society, where states and classes (as sources of conflict) are abolished.

As you yourself said, the myth of the Communist utopia is an illusory one borne out of a fundamental mischaracterization of the state of human nature. Look at the Second Internationale. All those preachy slogans of proletariat brotherhood and revolutionary spirit vanished overnight when the First World War broke out and each socialist party rallied around the cause of their respective nation. Social patriotism triumphed over internationalism.

The simple reality is that human beings are inclined to cluster into relatively homogeneous communities on the basis of common religion, language, cultural practices, geographical proximity and even more primitive issues such as skin colour. To assume that one can inculcate "revolutionary consciousness" into the masses, even after many generations, is a fantasy. Close to two centuries of failure in the worldwide socialist cause is indicative enough. Fascism claims to make no pretensions about the nature of human beings. It recognizes that the State is the most dominant manifestation of human community and not some alien Internationale and thus does everything to engender the creation of a powerful all-encompassing State (sometimes through questionable means).

I guess you aren't American, because even being moderately socially liberal can earn you social stigma over here.

Where I live, there's already a considerable level of suspicion and stigmatization towards social liberalism of the Western strand of thought.

Besides, what does it matter? If you're a moderate social conservative/GOP fuddy-duddy in America, you're also bound to encounter social stigma there.